Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL Founder Starts Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

Posted by timothy on from the database-shakeup dept.

Gary Pendergast writes "Monty Widenius, the 'father' of MySQL, has created the the Open Database Alliance, with the aim of becoming the industry hub for the MySQL open source database. He wants to unify all MySQL-related development and services, providing a potential solution to the fragmentation and uncertainty facing the communities, businesses and technical experts involved with MySQL, following the news of the Oracle acquisition of Sun." Related to this, an anonymous reader writes that "MySQL has announced a project to refactor MySQL to be a more Drizzle-like database." Update: 05/14 20:50 GMT by T : Original headline implied that this was a project of Sun, but (thanks to the open source nature of MySQL) it's actually Monty Widenius — no longer with Sun — leading this effort.

20 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. PostgreSQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just bite the bullet and port to it. In the process, you may have to learn a bit about how databases are actually supposed to work, but that's probably good for you.

  2. Refactoring Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do that when I write shitty code too.

  3. why? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For apps that need basic SQL functionality and aren't particularly-high load, I use SQLite. For app that need advanced SQL or high load, I use Postgres. I can't imagine a scenario when I would chose to use MySQL (or MS SQL, for that matter).

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:why? by chickenandporn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of us MySQL users see your Postgres question the same way: why use Postgres? There's 10 users of Postgres, and if I randomly toss both names into a room, I don't have to explain what MySQL is. Hell, half think I said "postfix" and leave the room.

      What's MS SQL? OK, I'm kidding, but it makes me wonder if you've checked MySQL lately. I haven't had a reason to check Postgres, so I maybe just-as-satisfied with MySQL as you are with Postgres.

      MySQL works for many of us. We don't want to switch to a different database in this tier of performance/cost. Plus, it's well-known outside of its fan-base, and is supported by a host of servers.

      I'm not inviting a Postgres-vs-the-world fight here, I'm pragmatic, and the one that works and has better compatibility TODAY is MySQL. Maybe next year, that'll be Postgres among the circles I work in. Today, that tier is held by MySQL, smaller to SQLite, and larger to Oracle.

    2. Re:why? by TypoNAM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is one major reason why I refuse to use PostgreSQL: VACUUME for the fail.

      Why the hell do we have to hand hold PostgreSQL to get it to clean up after its self? MySQL has no problem doing it on its own nor does any other databases that I know of require such an operation. Its also quite lame to run a dedicated daemon to monitor and tell PostgreSQL to clean up its mess. Another thing which was a past problem was the user permissions were just terribly implemented making it a complete joke to use for multi-user environments. Now it does appear that was resolved.

      The reason why I really have such a huge problem with VACUUM is that there is just no way in hell that a user program could ever know a good time to issue the cleaning procedure, that should be the database's job, not the user program period because it won't ever know about all the transactions going on and so forth. Imagine if the Linux kernel required root to issue some commands to have the kernel clean up after cache handling messes every once in a while to ensure continuing operation of the operating system and then a couple years later the devs figured creating a dedicated daemon to automate the command issuing tasks would be sufficient... it just doesn't make sense.

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    3. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm going to state something controversial, but for many applications security doesn't belong in the database, just like business logic. I would say this applies to most new web based applications developed today with ORM tools like Hibernate, but as always, there are exceptions.

      MySQL's killer functionality is the ability to plug in different database engines. So, for example, MySQL can be both a transactional database with InnoDB and a column based database with Infobright.

      Both are good, but I would say MySQL (with drizzle in particular) is focusing on the future of databases in the cloud and Postgres is focused on replicating the functionality of databases designed for corporate environments. Both are important environments and will remain so for quite some time.

    4. Re:why? by chickenandporn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's an interesting question then; the situations I see are the opposite: MySQL is the compatible solution already functioning, and a user would have to choose to change to Postgres.

      Hey ("barely able to read"), thanks for being childish. It adds humour.

    5. Re:why? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the most negative number MySQL can store?

      I'm asking because that's your score at reading comprehension.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:why? by JackARot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look-up a bunch of cheap hosting providers. How many have postgres? How many have mysql?

      You do realize that it's not just web apps that use databases right?

      See why you might choose mysql over postgres (or db2 or sysbase or oracle) for non-technical reasons?

      No, I just see a reason not to use a cheap hosting provider.

    7. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it scale better? Actually it does, at least the 5.4 branch, when compared to postgres 8.3 branch (http://dimitrik.free.fr/db_STRESS_MySQL_540_and_others_Apr2009.html).

      Does it have better security? Not really.

      Is it easier to manage in some way? That depends on the usage scenario. Several tools developed outside mysql make the usual cases actually easy to manage.

      Is there a killer feature its two closest competitors lack? Yep, plugable storage engines, documentation, mysql cluster.

      Roundup:
      Until recently, mysql didnt scale so well as postgres. That changed and imho wont change back for a while. Mysql's pluggable storage engines allow to fit the server towards many more use scenarios then postgres can ever dream of - there is no one size fits all solution. Cons to mysql are that its quirky, has long standing bugs and to most people the project's politics are a complete mess. Postgres definitely wins when it comes to features, its more customizable security model and in some cases its manageability and license. Nice things about postgres are serverside languages and point in time recovery. Postgres can easily get CPU bound, doesnt understand query caching.

      Mysql was, is and will be the default database for most web-related stuff - postgres fanboys should get over it. Mysql has the sister project Drizzle which now servers mysql as a testbed for different approaches to solving problems. Mysql started to focus on solving longstanding bugs, improve performance and is in the painful process of opening up and involving community.

      So, both databases have their usage scenario. Neither one will disappear. Ever. But my bet goes with mysql/drizzle in the long run (meaning that mysql will equal postgres plus stuff not in postgres).

    8. Re:why? by Splab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People like you are undermining the industry. You straddle around claiming to be a database developer with x years under the belt, but you are in fact putting your clients data in grave danger and when shit finally hits the fan on your mysql installation you are going to wish you listened to the people who knew better.

  4. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    An Open Database Alliance where the only database allowed is MySQL? Kinda reminds me of the World Series, where the only teams are from the USA.

  5. Re:Yes, but.... by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get why they treat Oracle like AOL acquiring Netscape. It is a database development company which has no solution to fill MySQL'es place if I haven't mistaken.

    I think after these incidents, large companies will think 1 billion times when they got the idea of acquiring an open source project. They treat Oracle like AOL for God's sake.

  6. What is his motive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Though he contributed a lot to MySQL, he is the one who benefited most from MySQL when it was sold to Sun. So, we as a community contributed to MySQL, he took all the contributions, packaged it nicely and sold to Sun for 1 billion USD. Now that his contract with Sun is over, he is there again asking community to contribute more but not for the original MySQL because he does't own it. He wants all of you to contribute for a clone that he is going to own so that he can make more money in future.

  7. Who? by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HEADLINE: MySQL Creates Open Database Alliance, Plans Refactoring

    MySQL the database application? It created a new alliance? It plans to refactor itself? Astonishing, if true.

    MySQL the software company? Uh, not, because Monty no longer has any connection with them.

    You mean Monty did these things. Not "MySQL". His identification with MySQL is pretty strong, but I don't think they'll merge any time soon!

  8. MySQL AB ver. 2? by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was during MySQL AB's time that MySQL began a stange play with the community by first dropping official community binary builds, and then severely delaying source code releases as well (while supplying commercial clients with more stable and up to date releases).

    It was again during MySQL AB's time when the announcement came that MySQL's source code base will start to "close down", by releasing many new features only commercially, and with no open source code. When Sun bought MySQL AB, they reversed those policies and stood behind MySQL being open, without exceptions.

    Now Mr. Monty Widenius has taken the money Sun paid for MySQL AB, and used it to open a new company and an "Open" alliance which is "designed to become the industry hub for the MySQL open source database, including MySQL and derivative code, binaries, training, support, and other".

    If even Mr. Widenius has noble intentions regarding MySQL, his past in MySQL AB and his current interaction with Sun/Oracle seem to leave another impression.

  9. Re:Yes, but.... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought Oracle was a database? Is it different enough from MySQL to bother keeping both?

    If you have to ask that question, just believe us when we answer "Yes."

  10. Re:Yes, but.... by spauldo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Freightliners and Vespas are both vehicles.

    Oracle is what you use if you have hundreds of millions of dollars, a team of DBAs, and your need for data storage is such that downtime is measured in thousands of dollars lost per minute.

    MySQL is what you use if you've got ten employees (one of which knows a bit of PHP) and sell motorcycle parts over the internet and you don't feel like an ebay store would quite meet your need.

    They're both great products (I assume, I'm not a DBA and haven't messed with oracle). They're both RDBMS's. They both run on just about any modern platform. They're not used for the same stuff.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  11. Re:I'm confused by Splab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one can, you got several companies having their greased fingers involved, you got several different licensing systems for the same code base and the original developers all split into new forked projects.

  12. Re:Yes, but.... by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah. Oracle doesn't run all that well on the less-than-16-gig market.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.